12 killed, 50 wounded at Aurora movie theater

[Amy SF]

Clearly this guy has mental problems and is delusional. His motive may not be considered "normal" by our standards. He might think Batman is a real person and wanted to make a statement. He's probably being evaluated by a police psychiatrist right now.

I also want to add that with so much violence in American society, both on TV and in the movies and in real life, many people come to think of it as an everyday thing and they don't understand how it works. They think that, for example, shooting a gun into the sky or at the ceiling is harmless fun because they see it on a TV or movie screen and nothing bad happens. They become numb to violence, and that's why the moviegoers may have thought that the real shootings were part of the movie.

 

[mlp]

When something totally unexpected and unusual happens, it takes the mind time to process it. Whether that time consists of seconds or minutes depends on the individual. Add to that that this was a movie in which shooting takes place/was actuallytaking place at the instant he opened fire, it's totally to be expected that people would at first think that it was part of the movie.

 

[Josh James xVx]

One of my favorite Youtubers talks about "the blame game". This is a nice video to watch. His insights are pretty good. The finger pointing has already begun.

 

[K-II]

Yeah I'm wondering what his motive was as well.

As for the couple with the kids:
I find it disturbing that the man not only left the baby on the floor, but left his girlfriend and the other child and ran out of theater to save himself. I'm not a parent nor have I been in a situation like this, but I would not be able to live with myself if my first instinct was to worry about getting my own selfish *** to safety and to abandon my family.

Are you implying you'd commit suicide because you weren't happy with your instincts? What would your alternative be, to install different ones?

 

[Scorpius]

You guys, Natural News has it all figured out: http://www.naturalnews.com/036536_James_Holmes_shooting_false_flag.html

In other words, ​

this guy was equipped with exotic gear by someone with connections to military equipment

. SWAT clothing, explosives, complex booby-traps... c'mon, this isn't a "lone gunman." This is somebody who was selected for a mission, given equipment to carry it out, then somehow brainwashed into getting it done.​

 

[mlp]

You guys, Natural News has it all figured out: http://www.naturalnews.com/036536_James_Holmes_shooting_false_flag.html

Oh jeesh. As though all that stuff isn't available online.

 

[uno]

The guy had a promising career ahead of him. I'm really curious as to why he did it. He wore body armor, so he's not suicidal, but did he really think he would be able to escape? Very strange.

not strange at all if he wanted to do maximum damage and that would help him hold out longer. if i wanted to create maximum carnage, i would do the same. remember the Los Angeles bank robbers that lasted a long time based on their body armor?

 

[K-II]

It does seem like it would be helpful if someone had a pistol, since in the dark he would probably never see it until they fired (if even then). He could be pretty sure that people would show up later with things that could shoot through it though (if he cared either way), so I wouldn't say it diminishes the ability to suicide via police.

 

[ElaineV]

Those of you criticizing the victims of this tragedy have f-ed up priorities. It does not matter one iota why kids or babies were there or how the parents reacted to a shooting. They're victims. They are innocent victims who did not deserve to be shot at. Have some g-damn compassion!

 

[Digger]

All I asked was why a four month-old baby was at a midnight showing of The Dark Knight Rises. It is a valid question I think.

 

[AspireToExpire]

Supposedly he started shooting in a scene that contained a lot of gunfire, and people at first didn't realize there was someone actually shooting. If it's true, I don't think it means people watch too much television, considering you wouldn't be expecting actual shooting while you're in the middle of watching a movie, and I think it'd be natural to, at least in the first second or so, not be able to tell the difference in the sound of actual shooting with the loud shooting of the movie.

ETA: Yeah, it's true, it was during a scene with gunfire, which is understandable even if one had never watched television in their life before, I'd think. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/20/colorado-shooting-witness-video_n_1690155.html

I was watching the coverage live all day as they interviewed the survivors (thanks to my husband's obsession with it on several channels). Theater 9 was not showing a scene with gunfire, that was going on in the theater next door, theater 8. They were showing it on multiple screens and the one next door is the one that was in the middle of the shooting scene. The link you just provided, if you watch the video-that witness and his wife were in theater 8 next door.

Actual movie spoiler, witnesses confirmed he began walking up the aisles shooting seated people amd those trying to make it to exits:

Spoiler

after Catwoman robbed Batman.

Regardless, I stick to my original assertion that if your first instinct when you see/smell gas along with an armed man shooting multiple rounds is part of some sort of entertainment, you better wake up in a hurry. Your life may depend on it. Then again, I don't trust anyone and I live in Baltimore.

 

[Calliegirl]

Well, he'd recently withdrawn from the graduate program he was enrolled in. That may have triggered some sort of underlying psychological condition. (But I'm no expert...)

Or the other way around as well. He started having problems causing him to drop out of school.

 

[mlp]

Those of you criticizing the victims of this tragedy have f-ed up priorities. It does not matter one iota why kids or babies were there or how the parents reacted to a shooting. They're victims. They are innocent victims who did not deserve to be shot at. Have some g-damn compassion!

No, they didn't deserve to be shot at. Is anyone saying they did?

People don't deserve to have their houses burned down either. But if a parent puts his infant down on the floor so that he can run out of the house as soon as he smells smoke, I'm not thinking highly of him as a parent or as a human being.

Elaine, you go into knee jerk defensive mode about parents so fast that you hardly ever seem to actually give any thought to the children involved. That makes you pro parent, not pro child.

Where's your compassion for children?

 

[AspireToExpire]

Those of you criticizing the victims of this tragedy have f-ed up priorities. It does not matter one iota why kids or babies were there or how the parents reacted to a shooting. They're victims. They are innocent victims who did not deserve to be shot at. Have some g-damn compassion!

You are being too sensitive and taking things personal with the topic of parenting again. No one is saying that family deserved getting shot for taking their baby to the movie and if you can't understand the concern for a newborn/infant at midnight in a loud movie theater, I think you are the one in need of a little compassion.

 

[das_nut]

That's cause we americans have the stupid idea that guns will prevent gun violence. I mean, did any hand gun owner step up to stop this guy? I didn't think so...

I think most theaters ban concealed carry. Which means that law-abiding individuals were unarmed. Therefore I wouldn't expect any hand gun owners to confront this individual.

Which doesn't really matter, since in this circumstances (a dark, smoke filled crowded theater by all accounts) it seems that a responsible person acting in self-defense would find it hard to take a shot without putting many others at risk.

I will expect that some politicians and political groups will use this as an excuse for tougher gun control laws, even if the proposed laws would have done nothing to prevent this situation. But sadly, if it turns out this shooter was mentally ill (and it seems a strong possibility), I doubt we'll see similar effort towards better mental healthcare screening and treatment.

Considering the utterly dumb approaches we've used in the past for gun control laws, I bet improved mental healthcare would work better.

(Don't get the wrong impression - I'm for some gun control laws that improve safety, but we've laws that ban weapons based on what are mostly cosmetic features. That's useless.)

 

[AspireToExpire]

Where there's a will, there's a way.

 

[ElaineV]

All I asked was why a four month-old baby was at a midnight showing of The Dark Knight Rises. It is a valid question I think.

which I already answered. Twice.

As I explained, babies that age are not sleeping through the night, nor are they particularly sensitive to noise, and they're vision is much poorer than an adults vision, thus a movie at midnight is actually less disruptive to a 4-month-old than an adult or teen. In fact, the damage a movie like that (due to violence on screen and midnight timing resulting in sleep deprivation) is worse for a teen than for a 4-month-old.

 

[mlp]

I think that all good parents should set up large screen TV's with surround sound in their babies' and four year olds' rooms and blast special effects movies all night long. It's so conducive to good sleep that it's downright negligent to not do that.

 

[led.boots]

I think that all good parents should set up large screen TV's with surround sound in their babies' and four year olds' rooms and blast special effects movies all night long. It's so conducive to good sleep that it's downright negligent to not do that.

There is nothing wrong with bringing an infant to the movies. Let's not completely alienate families from society.As I said above, I brought my 4 month old to the '89 batman. I put cotton in her ears so the sound was muffled.

Now, shooting people in the theatre is abnormal.

 

[mlp]

which I already answered. Twice.

As I explained, babies that age are not sleeping through the night, nor are they particularly sensitive to noise, and they're vision is much poorer than an adults vision, thus a movie at midnight is actually less disruptive to a 4-month-old than an adult or teen. In fact, the damage a movie like that (due to violence on screen and midnight timing resulting in sleep deprivation) is worse for a teen than for a 4-month-old.

BTW, I don't think Digger was asking you to answer the question again - he was responding to your post immediately above his, by pointing out that he had asked a simple question.